I suppose from what I have read on your site that you will feel, after all, that this is too late for many who could have benefited, so that, even though in the future any amputees will be healed, past amputees got a raw deal, and anyway this is all courtesy of science, which by agreement plays devil's advocate, refusing to appeal to the existence of God in seeking to explain the universe and use the explanation to get some control over it.

I would suggest that you do not understand the meaning of time in relation to knowledge, which seems to be the distance between our ignorance and the answers to our questions, of God in relation to knowledge and answers, which seems to be the power of truth at the level of omniscience and love at the level of impartial universality.

What did the Bible do to contribute to these new developments? The same thing it did to contribute to the fact that, though the medieval alchemists never figured out how to turn dross into gold, modern physicists finally developed the knowledge of how to synthesize gold in their laboratories, an answer to the prayers and efforts of the ignorant in that medieval past. It taught people to have faith in omniscient truth and to love others as the most important of all things we do, not to give up in the face of impossible odds and disappointments, and to learn how to read, to practice reading, writing, and interpreting, and to care sincerely about knowledge and others and understanding enough to be humble, to recognize our ignorance and correct it.

It was from not getting answers or love one way that people of serious thought and caring raised to read this book came to develop the beginnings of the science that led us to the point of getting what we have now, and that later people of serious thought and caring raised to read the same book changed generation after generation into people who drew still others from all other parts of the world, who read other books, into the scientific enterprise and sped up its development to what we have now. The distance between the ignorance of those who originally wrote down the book text and what science now knows is the amount of time it took to get here. And the fact that some are still almost that ignorant is not itself a function of that book.

Of course it is unfair that amputees to date have not been healed, just as it is unfair that some harmless five-year-old girls have been raped and tortured to death and that some incredibly kind, loving, intelligent people have gotten a raw deal here while many selfish, self-centered, ignorant people have gotten rich by hurting others. But that, of course, is why the only serious reasons to care about this world and its empirical evidence are to keep our faith in and love omniscient truth and to love others and to learn as much as we can, grow our knowledge and understanding, and to apply what we know and learn to try to make the world fairer. If truth really is omniscient, then when we get out of here, we have every right to expect that where we go, the amputees will have their limbs back, the little girls will no more experience what tortured them, and the incredibly kind, loving, intelligent people will be shown the sort of appreciation they deserve.

I'm not suggesting that critiques of the Bible are unwarranted, but rather that it is large enough to contain much that is worth reading if one applies one's capacities for discriminating taste and seeking those passages which can be appreciated by one's better nature and ought to be applied to many books (otherwise, why pay attention to them?).

Hope you enjoy the article and have a nice day.

Sincerely,

anonymous

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

WOW, if I understand you correctly,you are saying that our scientific advancements are a result of the bible. That's a new one..... I remember the church threatening to put lots of scientist to death in the Middle Ages for such stuff. Called it witchcraft. I think the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of the Middle Ages in knowledge until the Church destroyed all records of such advancements. Your God and bible are frauds.

...Of course it is unfair that amputees to date have not been healed, just as it is unfair that some harmless five-year-old girls have been raped and tortured to death and that some incredibly kind, loving, intelligent people have gotten a raw deal here while many selfish, self-centered, ignorant people have gotten rich by hurting others.

This argument fails as amputees are a specific group ignored by God. The raped child and raw deals are palpably the work of mankind and not at all associated with god divine powers. The Christian apologist always explains evil in the world by saying that it is man not following god.

The question still remains, "WWGHA?"

Quote

But that, of course, is why the only serious reasons to care about this world and its empirical evidence are to keep our faith in and love omniscient truth and to love others and to learn as much as we can, grow our knowledge and understanding, and to apply what we know and learn to try to make the world fairer.

I think you have missed the point that God can be removed from any explanation without damaging the explanation:

e.g. "God does not heal amputees because He does not choose to" = "Amputees never regrow limbs"

As far as your understanding of the advancement of science is concerned, you have spent a lot of time and words being simply wrong. The dead area in the growth of scientific knowledge is approximately equal to the length of time that the church held sway. Even today, attempts at suppressing the teaching of evolution are not uncommon and, left to creationists, it would not be taught at all - thus the so-called scientists in the Dark and Middle Ages were similarly censored.

You say we should "grow our knowledge and understanding"; how is this possible when religious freaks are dictating policy?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Christians are an interesting group. They have no criteria, other than wanting things to be the way they wish they were. So as they take are confronted by the little bits and pieces of reality they accidentally run in to, they are forced to find ways to make those pieces fit in well with the ones they made up. Which make up 85-90% of their reality. And hence they come up with crap like this, that christianity and science are as one.

Sorry writer. We have standards. I have no way of explaining that concept(having standards) to you (well I can, but I can't make you understand). So if it important to you to believe that the whole world can be tidily wrapped up in your christian story, you go ahead and believe that. It'll break your heart though, if you ever actually learn what a fantasy is.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

What did the Bible do to contribute to these new developments? The same thing it did to contribute to the fact that, though the medieval alchemists never figured out how to turn dross into gold, modern physicists finally developed the knowledge of how to synthesize gold in their laboratories, an answer to the prayers and efforts of the ignorant in that medieval past.

The question isn't "why won't the Bible help us to heal amputees", it's "why won't God heal amputees." According to millions of Christians God has been hard at work healing mental illness, cancers, colds, etc. for thousands of years. So why is it only when it comes to the issue of amputees that suddenly the answer becomes that God just left us with the Bible so that someday scientists might be able to unravel the secrets to healing them themselves? Given your logic what would be the point of God personally curing someone's cancer if he could instead just hand over a Bible, kick up his feet, and twiddle his thumbs until scientists come up with a cure on their own? Why is an immediate, miraculous cure expected in the case of cancer while a mundane treatment developed through countless centuries of study and taught through decades of training to be expected in the case of amputees?

I would suggest that you do not understand the meaning of time in relation to knowledge, which seems to be the distance between our ignorance and the answers to our questions, of God in relation to knowledge and answers, which seems to be the power of truth at the level of omniscience and love at the level of impartial universality.

I suggest you re-read the above paragraph and ask yourself, 'does this genuinely make any sense whatsoever'?

I'm not suggesting that critiques of the Bible are unwarranted, but rather that it is large enough to contain much that is worth reading if one applies one's capacities for discriminating taste and seeking those passages which can be appreciated by one's better nature and ought to be applied to many books (otherwise, why pay attention to them?).

Well, at least you openly admit to being a cafeteria christian, which is a good thing since it means you're not out there demanding adulterers, homosexuals and recalcitrant children be killed.

I have to disagree with the author of this letter. First off, saying that the Bible contributed "faith in omniscient truth" to science is false. Science is not built around "omniscient truth" at all. It's built around checking our accumulated knowledge for errors, mistakes, and falsehoods, and that has nothing to do with "faith in omniscient truth". In actual fact, such a belief would actually retard scientific development, since science is dependent on rigorously questioning things believed to be true.

Second, science in and of itself is not built around loving others. Once people learned to question what they believed to be true, scientific methodology was pretty much inevitable, and it would have come about regardless of whether people loved each other or not.

Third, I don't think the Bible taught scientists to not give up despite long odds and disappointments. Humans have always been stubborn, and scientific development before Christianity showed those same hallmarks.

Fourth, the Bible didn't have much to do with the development of reading, writing, and interpretation. That's always been an important skill as long as civilization has existed. While it's true that the first book printed on Gutenburg's printing press was the Bible, the fact is that someone would have eventually come up with the process, Bible or no Bible.

The rest of your statements in this paragraph are basically crediting human qualities to the Bible, which I think is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Those human qualities existed despite the Bible, and furthermore there was a period of more than a thousand years where the Bible was used to justify atrocity after atrocity, used to excuse the existence of suffering, used to convince people to accept their lot in life in exchange for a promised reward, etc.

No. The Bible cannot be credited with the accomplishments of science except by accident. Furthermore, to attempt to claim that what humans developed due to lack of "divine guidance" is due to that same god is atrocious. If a teacher abandoned his classroom because he felt the students should learn for themselves, he would be delinquent. If he came back and then attempted to claim that what learning they'd accumulated was because of him, he would also be arrogant.

The Bible is worth reading, but not because it somehow promotes scientific development. It is worth reading - in full, with no sophistic attempts to rationalize away the things one doesn't like - because it shows just how ridiculous it is to credit it as the word of God.

The distance between the ignorance of those who originally wrote down the book text and what science now knows is the amount of time it took to get here. And the fact that some are still almost that ignorant is not itself a function of that book.

I absolutely disagree. You've agreed that the authors of the book were ignorant. Trouble is, there are millions of people around to day who still treat every word set down in that book as unquestionable fact.....which means they are JUST as ignorant as the people who wrote it. And that is entirely down to that ignorant book, because if that book did not exist, they would not only have no justification for their ignorant beliefs, but would in all likelihood not hold those ignorant beliefs in the first place.

So you are wrong. The fact that millions of people around the world are still on the level of understanding of goat-herders from two millennia ago is entirely a function, and the fault, of that book.

I know about gold being extracted from unlikely sources (like, a pile of discarded iPads ... which isn't SUCH an unlikely source) But the only case of 'making gold out of non-gold' I'm aware of is in a Soviet reactor. Due to circumstances[1] the lead shielding of the reactor chamber was never replaced and after decades of being bombarded with neutrons so many of the lead atoms had had particles knocked out of their nucleus that the shielding had technically become gold. Gold that will kill you stonedead if you ever tried to go anywhere near it ... but still ... gold.

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Wow! All I intended was to suggest that there is no reason to suppose that omniscient, omnipotent true mind would not heal amputees, and I can't imagine what the word God could refer to as commonly used if it did not include such mind in the reference. You can say anything you want about what I wrote, but be careful. When you assert some limitation on positive possibilities, the impulse to limit is at work. The same impulse in lesser degree is seen when ignorant religious fanatics try to force people to follow some traditionalistic religious rules via the force of law, curmudgeony old scientists tell others not to fund research that could poke holes in the old scientists' earlier research, and one doctor tells you you're going to die of cancer within half a year. It's always better to go get other opinions rather than just believe in limitations.

I'm just recommending the article to those who actually care about amputees getting healed more than they care about insisting God won't heal them.

...there is no reason to suppose that omniscient, omnipotent true mind would not heal amputees,

That's quite a mouthfull. I do not see it so much as a supposition as it is an observation. You hear all the time about people allegedly having one malady or another cured by prayer. But you never hear about amputees regrowing limbs. It has never been documented. It is pretty fair to say, it doesn't happen. There must be an explanation for that.

I'm just recommending the article to those who actually care about amputees getting healed more than they care about insisting God won't heal them.

It was a cool science article and demonstrates human ingenuity. Thanks for sending it. But please keep in mind, the point of this site and forum is to discuss how the problem of amputees informs us about alleged gods.

I'm just recommending the article to those who actually care about amputees getting healed more than they care about insisting God won't heal them.

You missed the point of this website entirely with that one sentence. Good job!

I should also note that you are lying with the above statement. You posted the article about scientists discovering ways to grow new body parts and then tried to say the answers were revealed in the bible:

Quote

What did the Bible do to contribute to these new developments? The same thing it did to contribute to the fact that, though the medieval alchemists never figured out how to turn dross into gold, modern physicists finally developed the knowledge of how to synthesize gold in their laboratories, an answer to the prayers and efforts of the ignorant in that medieval past. It taught people to have faith in omniscient truth and to love others as the most important of all things we do, not to give up in the face of impossible odds and disappointments, and to learn how to read, to practice reading, writing, and interpreting, and to care sincerely about knowledge and others and understanding enough to be humble, to recognize our ignorance and correct it.

I don't think your god would be too happy with your blatant lies, would he?

E.

Logged

'O pitiful shadow lost in the darkness,Bringing torment and pain to others. O damned soul wallowing in your sin.Perhaps it is time to die?'

Wow! All I intended was to suggest that there is no reason to suppose that omniscient, omnipotent true mind would not heal amputees,

This is a valid point. It's equally valid to point out that amputees do not get healed. You're right in that yes, there's no evidence to suggest that this true mind wouldn't do so, but there's certainly ample evidence to make it pretty clear that it never, ever happens.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Wow! All I intended was to suggest that there is no reason to suppose that omniscient, omnipotent true mind would not heal amputees,

We got that.

Quote

...and I can't imagine what the word God could refer to as commonly used if it did not include such mind in the reference.

I think people place too much on their own definitions of what they perceive as their god.

Quote

You can say anything you want about what I wrote, but be careful. When you assert some limitation on positive possibilities, the impulse to limit is at work.

It's not us who are closed-minded, if that's the implication.

Quote

The same impulse in lesser degree is seen when ignorant religious fanatics try to force people to follow some traditionalistic religious rules via the force of law, curmudgeony old scientists tell others not to fund research that could poke holes in the old scientists' earlier research, and one doctor tells you you're going to die of cancer within half a year. It's always better to go get other opinions rather than just believe in limitations.

I reas a lot of nonsense then sense at the end.

Quote

I'm just recommending the article to those who actually care about amputees getting healed more than they care about insisting God won't heal them.

We care, it's just we place our knowledge in the science of it all, and not some vapid hope that some deity who may/may not exist will do what some religious person wrote in some book says will do it if one prays for it.

-Nam

« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 05:24:24 PM by Nam »

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.